I am in receipt of your letter dated April 3, 2001, which was
copied to the Board of Governors, Judy Johnson, Mike Nisperos, Jr.,
and Francis P. Bassios and which strongly suggests an old tale the
punch line of which is “kick the dog”. I do not believe that anything
I said in my letter dated March 29, 2001, suggested that I believed
that your Office is ignoring on-going criminal conduct by
scientology’s attorneys while at the same time pursuing me in a
disciplinary proceeding. Rather, it seems that your Office is ignoring
on-going criminal conduct by scientology’s attorneys wholly
independent of pursuing me in a disciplinary proceeding! Moreover, my
March 29, 2001, letter was not intended to cause debate over the
pending State Bar disciplinary proceeding against me. That should run
its proper course and it was not/is not my intent to abrogate that
process.

However, you are correct as to one point contained in your
letter. On the date you wrote it, an Early Neutral Evaluation
Conference was held in the Matter of the State Bar v. Graham Berry
(SB#128503) arising from the joint complaint of Church of Scientology
attorneys Michael Gerner and Donald Wager, representing the interests
of the Church of Scientology. In essence, the Church of Scientology
and the State Bar allege that: (1) in filing the Berry v. Cipriano
/Barton/Miscavige (Ingram/Moxon/Abelson) and Pattinson v. Church of
Scientology cases I was maintaining “unjust actions”; (2) I
paid/advanced some client costs from my business account instead of my
trust account; (3) I paid a pure earned fees payment into my business
account instead of my trust account; (4) I disobeyed court orders by
not paying the costs and sanctions orders in Pattinson, Barton,
Jeavons and another case (despite my bankruptcy); (5) I tried to
shield personal business operating money from levy by scientology’s
Barton. The State Bar Court’s Supervising Judge Michael D. Marcus
considered the draft eleven count State Bar complaint to be factually
and legally flawed. Indeed, he described two counts (one and eleven)
as being “theoretical ” [which merely adds to the widespread
speculation that scientology attorneys actually drafted the State
Bar’s Draft Complaint.] Moreover, the State Bar judge commented that
as currently pled, it is unlikely that the State Bar would prevail on
its latest (fourteenth?) complaint against me! I declined the
suggestion of a protective order quoting Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Outside the courtroom Ms.Goldade volunteered that it would be
a waste of time for the State Bar to let me see the relevant documents
again [Why? Is “actual suspension” the Chief Trial Counsel’s order to
her irrespective of the lack of legal, factual and policy merit to the
State Bar’s position?] I responded, “I need to see those documents in
order to try and get justice. Is it the State Bar’s position that it
is going to deprive me of easy access to relevant documents if that
deprives me of justice, because letting me see the relevant documents
for a second time is a waste of time?” Only that morning, Rose
Sandoval, another State Bar prosecutor had characterized the Wager
deposition as “a smoking gun” in a telephone conversation with Keith
Henson. (Mr. Henson had included about 2 pages of the Wager deposition
testimony in his letter to Judge Marcus and had sent a copy to Ms.
Sandoval. Ms. Goldade turned on her heels and stormed off while
angrily shouting, “Write me a letter. You are very good at that!”

The primary thrust of my March 29, 2001, letter is: “ . . .
that the State Bar continues to ignore this evidence of attorney
criminal [and unethical] conduct even though brought to its attention
by complainants such as Dr.Uwe Geertz, Keith Henson, Arel Lucas,
others and me.” Putting aside your ad hominen attack on me and denials
made too assertively and too rapidly, your April 3, 2001, letter
expressly and emphatically states: “ . . . allegations and denials of
misconduct which [I] have made in the past involving attorneys
representing the Church of Scientology were fully investigated by the
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the files were thereafter
closed. [My] current assertion…is equally lacking in merit.”

It is important both we, and those who may soon become
involved (such as the California Supreme Court and U.S. Department of
Justice), are all “on the same page” as to “the allegations of
misconduct” to which you refer. In that regard, it appears that you
are making an all-encompassing statement as “lacking in merit” in
connection with what is contained in many bankers’ boxes of documents
submitted over the past seven years. These various boxes of relevant
documents have been submitted as part of my hitherto various
successful responses to the many State Bar complaints initiated
against me by the Church of Scientology and its various attorneys.
Indeed, your hasty and revealing response is even more astounding when
considered against the following few examples of irrefutable attorney
misconduct that are contained among the various documents that I have
provided, and to which you refer in your April 3, 2001, letter under
reply.

Specifically, the following few examples are from documents
provided in the Dr.Geertz State Bar complaint and the Hurtado v. Berry
attorney client privilege brief filed after Judge Lachs opined that
the conduct of a number of attorneys (including Wager, Moxon, Kobrin,
Paquette, Abelson, Byrnes and Wager) had triggered the crime-fraud
exception to the attorney client privilege as between them, Hurtado
and the Church of Scientology. The exhibits referred to are attached
to that attorney-client privilege brief which was provided to State
Bar Attorney Terri Goldade, Esq.

In 1994, Moxon & Kobrin’s investigator, Eugene Ingram, was
seeking to discredit me. (Exh. 1, p. 61, 133; Exh. 4, p. 128:10-24) as
a result of the successful defense of the Yanny II and Fishman/Geertz
cases. In May 1994, Ingram (Moxon & Kobrin’s and Abelson’s “chief
investigator”) appeared uninvited at the door of Robert J. Cipriano’s
secured New York high-rise. (Exh. 1, pp. 64-66) Ingram said he was
a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department and “intimidated”
Mr. Cipriano into signing a declaration that Ingram had prepared.
(Exh. 1, pp. 71-80) The declaration contained a variety of statements
falsely accusing me of reprehensible and illegal conduct. (Exh. 1, 2,
¶¶ 5, 11) The May 5, 1994, Cipriano declaration has been widely
circulated. It has even been published on the Internet. Ingram said,
and has since testified by declaration, that the Cipriano declaration
would be used in the Church of Scientology v. Fishman/Geertz
defamation case. However, the church had already voluntarily dismissed
that case upon the eve of trial. It was also to be used, and was so
used, in connection with unsuccessful, false criminal and State Bar
complaints against me.

In early 1995, the Church of Scientology, Lewis, D’Amato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard, and the American Insurance Group, entered into a
secret settlement agreement, without the client’s (Dr. Geertz)
knowledge or consent, depriving him of his own files for use in
prospective litigation and transferring the joint ownership of
Dr.Geertz’s files to Robert F. Lewis and the Church of Scientology.
The erroneous justification was that the insurance carrier owned
Dr.Geertz’s files because Dr.Geertz’s professional indemnity policy
had funded his successful defense. Abelson, Moxon & Kobrin represented
the church. The Secret Agreement followed an uninvited surprise visit
that Abelson made upon Robert Lewis in early January 1995. Ingram had
been investigating Robert Lewis and other senior partners of his law
firm. Evidence strongly indicates that Abelson blackmailed Robert
Lewis with information obtained through Ingram’s “investigation”.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Secret Settlement Agreement provided for
Dr.Geertz’s files to be “transferred to the control of Robert F.
Lewis…the cost of storage will be paid by the Church of Scientology
International…Church of Scientology International will choose the
storage facility… Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard (and implicitly
the client Dr.Geertz) shall not have access to the documents…”
Dr.Geertz’s successor counsel had to obtain a federal court order to
get the Geertz files released for use in his malicious prosecution
case against the Church of Scientology. However, the files were not
delivered in time to be of use in the subsequent Fishman/Geertz v.
Church of Scientology malicious prosecution and abuse of process case.
The scientology attorneys’ (including former LA County Bar President,
John Quinn, and Gerald Feffer from Williams & Connolly) motion for
summary judgment in the malicious prosecution case, pending before
Judge Alexander Williams, III, was granted and the Fishman/Geertz
malicious prosecution case dismissed .The State Bar rejected
Dr.Geertz’s complaint regarding the scientology attorney’s conduct
because they were not Dr. Geertz’s attorneys. No action was taken
against Dr.Geertz’s own attorney Robert Lewis.

In 1998, I sued Robert Cipriano and others associated with the
Church of Scientology for libel and slander as a result of the false
statements that I am a pedophile. The case was assigned and
re-assigned until it reached the very same Judge Alexander Williams,
III. He dismissed the Cipriano case upon the pretext that I had not
fully responded to all of the over 2,500 interrogatories he had
ordered I answer, as if I had not answered enough questions after 13
days of my deposition! Very much later he disclosed that his fiancée
works for the same Church of Scientology management entity for which
Ingram, Abelson, Moxon & Kobrin also work. When this was finally
disclosed, Judge Williams refused to disqualify himself and declared
me a vexatious litigant for having filed the Berry v. Cipriano case!
The vexatious litigant motion was filed by Gerald Chaleff, Esq., who
was then Chairman of the Los Angeles Police Department Commission.

This was the only appearance Mr. Chaleff of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe made in the Berry v. Cipriano case. Because of the stress
associated with the Cipriano action (and related opposing counsel
misconduct) and continued harassment by the Church of Scientology, I
subsequently sought to be temporarily relieved as counsel of record in
all of my active cases. Finally, I was driven into bankruptcy where
Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette again appeared as counsel for my
adversaries Barton, Hurtado, Moxon and the Church of Scientology.
Barton claims his defense costs in Berry v. Cipriano. Hurtado claims I
raped him, although he has voluntarily dismissed those very same
claims in superior court rather than proceed to trial thirty days
later. Moxon claims I frivolously and baselessly alleged, in the
Pattinson v. Church of Scientology case that Moxon was engaged in
criminal, tortious and unethical conduct on behalf of the Church of
Scientology.

A year after the Cipriano case was dismissed, Mr. Cipriano was
deposed on June 12, 2000, and August 7, 8 and 12, 2000, in the Hurtado
v. Berry action. Moxon repeatedly attempted to stop the Cipriano
deposition by threatening a protective order suspending the deposition
on June 12, 2000, and attempting to again suspend the deposition on
August 7, 2000. Moxon even attempted to “seal” Mr. Cipriano’s
testimony. In his subsequent deposition, Mr. Cipriano once again
recanted all of the damaging statements contained in the May 5, 1994,
declaration. (Exh. 1, pp. 94-105) Mr. Cipriano testified he wanted
the “truth” to come out. (Exh. 1, pp. 61-62)

Mr. Cipriano also testified that Moxon and Ingram had
solicited his representation and provided him (and his girlfriend)
with a variety of free legal services. Moxon paid Wasserman, Comden &
Casselman to also represent Cipriano in Berry v. Cipriano in exchange
for Cipriano’s “cooperation” in litigation against me. (Exh. 1,
pp.16-17, 20, 137:23-25, 138:1-3, 142:19-25) Moxon provided Cipriano
with an automobile in order to make it worth Cipriano’s while not to
say anything about the false statements in the May 1994, Cipriano
declaration. (Exh. 1, pp.154: 6-25, 155:1-25, 156:1-6, 167:6-25) Moxon
paid for Cipriano’s condominium and leased a four-bedroom house for
Cipriano in Palm Springs. (Exh. 1, pp.156: 13-18, 157:6-12, 158:25,
159:1-14, 21-23, 160:4-25, 161:1-8, 165:18-21, 166:8-14, 168, 169:1-9,
240:15-25, 241:1-17) Moxon paid off a judgment of restitution against
Cipriano in New Jersey and paid Cipriano’s legal fees for then
expunging the related criminal conviction from Cipriano’s record and
possible impeachment use thereof in Berry v. Cipriano. (Exh. 1,
pp.169: 10-25, 170:1-20, 251:10-20, 252:9-25, 253:1, 255, 256-259)
Moxon also gave Cipriano an allowance for living expenses for his
“cooperation” in Berry v. Cipriano. (Exh. 1, pp.171: 8-25, 172:1-17,
174:8-24, 175:2-14, 176:1-16, 244:5-25, 245:1-4)

Moxon even purchased
a computer for Cipriano. (Exh. 1, pp.249: 25, 250:1-18) Moxon funded
Cipriano’s “non-profit” Day of the Child, obtained IRS section 501
(c)(3) tax-exempt status for the pass-through “non-profit” and
performed or paid for all the legal work and related fees for the
business. (Exh. 1, pp.180: 15-25, 189:1-15, 195:10-25, 196:1-6)
Barbara Reeves, Esq., then of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker was
consulted and was to be involved as counsel. In fact, Cipriano
testified under Moxon’s cross-examination: “You were providing the
funds to run a company so I would testify on your side.” (Exh. 1, p.
317:17-25) Cipriano testified that the Church of Scientology
International paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Cipriano’s
personal, business and living expenses during the pendency of Berry v.
Cipriano.

Moxon stated that even $ 750,000 would not be a problem. He
has also testified as to the role of Samuel D. Rosen of the Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky and Walker law firm who was also involved. Cipriano
testified that Rosen, in effect, coached him to commit perjury. You
have over fifty corroborating documents among the files your office
has “reviewed and rejected” as “lacking in merit.” Many of these
documents are in Moxon’s own handwriting and with his signature.

In December 1999, Cipriano was paid $800 to sign a settlement
and release of any claims he may have against Moxon and a declaration,
which Cipriano now contends, is inaccurate. Moxon elicited the
following testimony on cross-examination of his former client
Cipriano:

“Q: Was it your intention to sign it under the penalty of perjury
or not?

A: Just as through this whole case perjury has not meant much
to.-- to us, in my opinion. And in return for the $800 you paid me I
signed this.

Q: Did you make any representation to anyone when -- that you
signed this declaration, it was inaccurate?

A: That it was inaccurate . . . let me ask a question. If it was
accurate, then why was I being paid $800?

Q: Would you answer my question?

A: It was understood. You don’t pay people to write affidavits
unless you’re doing something . . . . I didn’t have intent one-way or
the other. You presented two documents to a settlement agreement, an
affidavit, offered me 500 out of nowhere. I did not solicit it. That
number settled at $800. I signed in return for the $800.” (Exh. 1, p
295, p. 297, see also pp. 299:5-9, 300:2-13, 304:1-25)

Again, under Moxon's cross-examination, Cipriano testified:

"Well, you kept providing money. And based on the fact that
our whole relationship started with your agent, Mr. Ingram,
threatening and intimidating me to give the false declaration in 1994.
It was just a continuation of all that, Sir." (Exh. 1, pp. 325:20-25,
326:1-8)

Under further cross-examination, Cipriano told Moxon:

"That is what you wanted to hear. That is what you coached me to do.
That is what I was threatened and intimidated to do. And that's what I
was paid to do." (Exh. 1, p. 359:16-23; see also pp. 333, 334, 341
and 352.)

Cipriano described the procedure Moxon used in preparing
declarations in Cipriano v. Berry:

"Every declaration that you prepared for me to sign was what
you wanted to hear, and what you wanted written, and what you wanted
to file in court, and what you wanted for everything. . . . I signed
what you prepared with the commencement of the threat and intimidation
and the payments thereafter. Almost every time you gave me something
to sign, you look at the same date or day after and there is a payment
of some sort." (Exh. 1, p. 362:9-21)

Cipriano’s claims that Moxon paid him, and that he received
multiple items and services of value from Moxon, are well documented.
(Exh. 3, pp.3-11) Put simply, why else would Mr. Cipriano make false
statements about me? Mr. Cipriano was paid for perjury by attorneys
representing the Church of Scientology. Similar declaration testimony,
and its 50 corroborating exhibits, has been with the State Bar for at
least 18 months. However, your letter expressly states that my
allegations of attorney misconduct are “lacking in merit.”

Cipriano also testified that Moxon and Ingram told him that
they had located a person named Michael Hurtado who purportedly, “Had
exchanged sexual favors for legal services by me.” (Exh. 1, pp.
106-109) Ingram told Cipriano that the information regarding Michael
Hurtado would be used to file a State Bar complaint against me and to
be used by being included in leaflets on cars around my neighborhood.
(Exh. 1, p. 110) In fact, just as Ingram told Cipriano, a State Bar
complaint was filed against me (by Gerner and Wager) and leaflets have
been left in this neighborhood identifying me as a child molester.

Less than one month later, in December 1998, Elliot Abelson, a
scientology attorney, first told Donald Wager about Michael Hurtado.
(Wager Depo., pp. 18:23-25, 19:1-24, 20:1-8) Wager opened his file on
Michael Hurtado in December 1998, and began billing even though he had
never met Hurtado. (Wager Depo, p. 13:20-25) Wager then spoke with
Eugene Ingram about Michael Hurtado at least three times. (Wager
Depo., p. 25:1-25) Wager understood Ingram was working for
scientology because Ingram told him he was working for Moxon at the
time. (Wager Depo., pp. 26-27, 32:7-14) Moxon, acting as
scientology's counsel, also contacted Wager regarding Mr. Hurtado.
Wager had at least six Hurtado-related conversations with Moxon before
he ever met plaintiff Hurtado. (Wager Depo., pp. 27-28)

In mid-January 1999, Eugene Ingram appeared at the Hurtado’s
home in Santa Monica, once again unannounced and uninvited. (Exh. 13,
pp. 29:3-6, 27:7-25, 29:6-10, 25; Exh. 14, pp. 19-25) Ana and Vanessa
Hurtado testified that Ingram told them that I was a child molester.
(Exh. 13, pp. 10:3-6, 27:7-25, 29:6-10, -25; Exh. 14, pp. 19-25) Mr.
Ingram said he was investigating me from New York and had been
investigating me for a long, long time. (Exh. 13, pp. 31:9-25,
32:1-25, 33:1-24, 38:18-25, 39:1-11; Exh. 15, pp. 131:16-25, 132: -13)
Ingram suggested to the Hurtados that I had taken advantage of
24-year-old Michael Hurtado.

When Ingram showed them the videotape of my testimony
regarding my sexual relationship with Michael Hurtado, Mrs. Hurtado
did not want to see it or look at it and she refused to keep it,
saying: “Forget it. Take it.” (Exh. 13, pp.37: 2-11, 20-22, 25,
38:1-2) The entire Hurtado family had long believed that homosexual
conduct was inappropriate. (Exh. 14, pp.157-158) Yet, Ingram showed
them the false Cipriano declaration, multiple other documents, and
even told them that I liked to be defecated upon. (Exh. 14, pp. 46,
143) Ingram wanted the Hurtados “ . . . to see a lawyer because of
this matter,” and suggested that there was a possibility that there
could be a civil suit against me. (Exh. 14, pp. 123:2-14, 22,
130:24-25, 131:1-4) Within a very few days, Ingram took Ana, Miguel,
Vanessa and a Cuban writer friend to see Wager. At Wager's office,
they were introduced to Moxon. (Exh. 13, pp. 34:18-25, 35:1-25,
36:1-4, 11-25, 45:9, 46:1-25, 55:2-8, 59:1-17)

Both Ana and Vanessa Hurtado thought the purpose of the
meeting was to find a lawyer who would represent Michael in a lawsuit
against me. Neither of them knew about the then- pending drug
paraphernalia charges against Michael Hurtado. (Exh. 14, p. 49:15-25)
(Exh. 13, pp. 27:7-17, 29:6-24, 30:1-20, 31:14-25, 32:1-13, 33:4-11,
46:19-25, 47:1-6, 58:14-17, 59:12-17) No one in the Hurtado family
discussed my relationship with Michael Hurtado at any time before they
attended the meeting with Wager and Moxon. Instead, Vanessa, Ana and
Miguel Hurtado -- without Michael Hurtado -- met with the attorneys
and, before even discussing any of it with Michael, decided to file
the Hurtado v. Berry lawsuit against me. (Exh. 13, pp. 35-41, 53-54)
After the meeting, the elder Mr. Hurtado told Michael that Mr. Wager
would now be representing him in the criminal matter.

The Hurtados went along with whatever the lawyers, Wager and
Moxon, and investigator Ingram told them to do. (Exh. 14, pp. 40-44.)
The Hurtados even went so far as to allow Ingram to tap their phone to
[attempt to] entrap me. (Exh. 14, pp. 59-85) In fact, Michael Hurtado
is not suing because of what was allegedly done to him. Instead, he
is suing for “money” and because:

“I figured, you know, a person like this, doesn’t deserve
anything good; so I just don’t believe a person in a career that
should be able to have sex with minors and do drugs and offer drugs to
minors. I don’t believe in that; so that is why I’m suing.” (Exh. 15,
p. 131:2-15)

Wager did not meet with Michael Hurtado until January 22,
1999, after Wager had met with Abelson, Ingram, Moxon and the Hurtado
family. (Wager Depo., pp. 20:17-25, 21:1-23, 22:25, 23:1, 24:1-21)
Wager and plaintiff did not sign a retainer agreement until January
27, 1999. In the meantime, Moxon and Ingram had Cipriano use a Los
Angeles city social services agency to locate a transvestite street
prostitute by the name of Anthony Apodaca. He later testified that he
knew Hurtado!

Wager and Moxon filed the Hurtado v. Berry verified civil
action on April 5, 1999. Moxon & Kobrin made an early and opening
settlement demand upon my malpractice insurance carrier. It was for $
750,000. They later filed the exact same case in the United States
Bankruptcy Court. Although Wager never represented him, on April 13,
1999, Wager visited Anthony Apodaca in jail and left between $100 and
$300 for him. Moxon reimbursed Wager. (Wager Depo., pp. 46:3-14;
53:10-25; 57:16-24, 59:20-22; 64:23-25) Apodaca was not a witness to
anything relating to the Hurtado drug paraphernalia case wherein Wager
was counsel. (Wager Depo., pp. 63:16-22, 64:11-25) In fact, on April
13, 1999, “There was a real question in [Apodaca’s] mind as to who I
was.” However, on April 22, 1999, Ingram, Moxon and Wager met with
Apodaca and he was videotaped. (Wager Depo., pp. 48:7-22, 50:9-15,
58:5-19) Mr. Apodaca may also have been given money on April 22,
1999. (Wager Depo., p. 60:9-25)

Mr. Apodaca was now able to identify
me as a man he had been with four to five years earlier. (Exh. 18) In
the videotape, Mr. Apodaca said that while he was under age, he
engaged in sadomasochistic activities with me (Exh. 18.). Barbara
Reeves of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker attempted to introduce the
Hurtado and Apodaca “testimony” into Berry v. Cipriano. On April 26,
1999, Moxon noticed Mr. Apodaca's deposition in this action. (Exh. 19)

However, at his deposition on May 3, 2000, Mr. Apodaca
testified he was very high at the time of the videotaping, had no
recollection of it and he could not even recognize me. (Exh. 16) Mr.
Apodaca said he was pressured into giving his videotaped statement.
According to Mr. Apodaca, some lawyer came to County Jail and gave him
$200. He was given money, McDonald’s food certificates and clothing
to testify against me. He refused. According to Mr. Apodaca, “All this
stuff about this plaintiff trying to bribe me to testifying -- okay?
-- I don’t go for that. (Exh. 16, p. 12)

In the spring of 1999, Wager, along with scientology attorney
Abelson and Ingram also met with Detective Petz and District Attorney
Paul Turley to encourage them to prosecute me for pandering. (Wager
Depo. pp. 101:13-16, 103:9-25, 104:13-25, 105-106) During that
meeting, Wager told Turley about his client's criminal history, the
pending charges against Hurtado, and Hurtado's claims against me.
(Wager Depo. pp. 105:10-25, 107:11-15, 22-25, 108:1-4, 21-25, 109:1-6,
112:17-25, 113:1-19) Wager called Detective Petz several times to see
if I would be prosecuted and was ultimately told no charges would be
brought. (Wager Depo., p. 114)

Although Wager declined to represent
Hurtado when still more criminal charges were brought against him, he
did discuss the additional charges with both Abelson and Ingram.
(Wager Depo., pp. 118:4-19, 119:13-17) However, Wager did file a
motion to vacate Hurtado’s diversion plea and to reinstate his not
guilty plea to the possession of drug paraphernalia charge. On the
basis of Hurtado’s perjured allegations against me as his original
counsel in the matter, Wager [fraudulently] convinced the Santa Monica
Supervising Judge to dismiss the drug paraphernalia charges in the
interests of justice. The presiding Santa Monica Superior Court Judge
then referred Hurtado’s now demonstrably solicited and perjurious
declaration to the State Bar for action against me.

Meanwhile, and also at the instigation of Wager and Gerner,
State Bar proceedings were brought against me arising out of Michael
Hurtado’s verified but now demonstrably perjured allegations.
Scientology’s representatives regularly contacted the State Bar
demanding that I be disbarred or suspended on the basis of Hurtado’s
allegations.

Abelson represented Wager for purposes of the deposition in
the Hurtado v. Berry case. Abelson has spent years “investigating”
me. By way of example, on September 13, 2000, Mr. Abelson wrote to an
attorney in New Zealand:

“I am writing to you in connection with an investigation I am
conducting into Graham E. Berry. The purpose of my investigation is
to uncover unethical or illegal conduct committed by Mr. Berry. I
understand you may have data that may be of help in my investigation.
Specifically, I would appreciate any information you can provide
concerning Mr. Berry’s motives for embarking upon a course of action
which would seem, to any objective observer, to be contrary to his own
best interests, and a blatant attack on international religion.” (Exh.
17)

Mr. Abelson saw fit to copy this letter to everyone from my
elderly parents in New Zealand to the New York State Bar Disciplinary
Office, to the Department of Justice in New Zealand as well as to my
friend’s (Jane Scott) neighbors in unincorporated Marin County.

Since bringing the Hurtado v. Berry action, Michael Hurtado
has been arrested multiple times and is currently in jail for
violation of probation -- five years for stalking. As the District
Attorney’s office knows, Ingram attempted to intimidate Hurtado’s
victim into changing her testimony. Ingram continued to provide
substantial investigative services for Hurtado in those several
criminal proceedings, attended court proceedings and took Hurtado to
AA meetings. These were in the same area where I attended AA meetings.
Although Hurtado was represented by Public Defenders before the
Hurtado v. Berry lawsuit, he has been consistently represented by
private criminal defense attorneys since the day his family agreed to
sue me.

Thus, there is strong evidence that scientology and its
lawyers have consistently either used or planned to use false
statements both in civil, criminal and State Bar actions and to foment
legal proceedings against me. Like Cipriano, Michael Hurtado received
substantial benefits for prosecuting the Hurtado v. Berry action which
Hurtado, Moxon and Thomas Byrnes, Esq., voluntarily dismissed one
month before trial (scheduled for March 5, 2001). Hurtado did so from
prison, during the pendency of a motion to compel testimony because,
as indicated by the retired discovery judge, the crime-fraud exception
applied and the attorney-client privilege had been waived.

In your April 3, 2001, letter it is quite clear that you
believe that such matters were determined by your office to be
“lacking in merit.” Clearly, on the basis of that statement you
believe that the activities described herein are not evidence of
criminal activity. Please enlighten me as to what else one might call
the above-delineated perjury, subornation of perjury, solicitation,
maintenance, wiretap, fraud, etc. If the above delineated crimes are,
in fact, not crimes, then please explain to me what precisely they
are. As nearly as I can ascertain we have two and only two choices
regarding these matters; first, that the above described conduct by
the scientology attorneys is legal (to say nothing of ethical and
moral) and the State Bar should rightly and properly ignore my
accusations (irrespective of how well documented they are) or; second,
that that the above described conduct by the scientology attorneys is
illegal (and immoral and unethical) irrespective of whom the
perpetrators are and should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted
by the State Bar.

Please anticipate a far more detailed rebuttal of your amazing
and provocatively defensive letter in due course. In the meantime, the
victims of this band of rogue attorneys obviously must proceed in
other more responsive and objective forums. This is one reason that so
many people (including other State Bar complainants, above partially
enumerated herein) have requested a public inquiry. This inquiry panel
must be comprised of three retired judges who are able to take
evidence from the several dozen witnesses who are currently known to
have personal knowledge of the matters of which I write. After public
investigation is concluded, the Chief Trial Counsel’s office and the
District Attorney could then initiate any appropriate proceedings. The
contents of your April 3, 2001, letter merely serve to underscore the
need for a more open and accountable forum.

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full
within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to
U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed
at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author
of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise
provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be
removed fairly promptly.